Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Now there is some real debate to be had about Paul Flowers suitability for the chairmanship of the Co-op Bank. And there is some investigating to be done by the police, whether one feels it is right or wrong, into alleged criminal activity (drug dealing etc.) by Mr Flowers. But these two things are actually quite unconnected.

Paul Flowers oversaw the rather serious decline, and near collapse, of the Co-op Bank. The fact he admits he was put in charge due to a "power struggle within the co-operative movement" is something that really beggars belief (even if it is all too common). Questions must be asked.

Alas. Instead of asking these important questions the media is obsessed with a man choosing to do drugs (OH NOES!) and, heaven forbid, pay for sex with some young scally type (all a bit sad really, but then I'm not a big fan of drugs nor scallies so I'm just being judgmental). Yes. Awful stuff indeed. The dodgy political motives of his appointment and his terrible legacy at the bank pale into insignificance compared to what he puts in his body (or puts in others, depending on his preference). Well they do if you are more interested in puerile gossip stories about some silly aspects of a more serious scandal.

Worse than his role in bringing a bank to its knees, he broke the rules by watching legal adult material on a council laptop and had to resign from being a councillor and then, shock horror, became a governor of a school!

BBC has learned that Paul Flowers was appointed as a LEA school governor after resigning from council for adult images on a laptop -
— Gary O'Donoghue (@BlindGazza) November 20, 2013

Yes, a man who once looked at porn was allowed to be a school governor. Imagine. Let us ban all people who've looked at porn from having any such connection, no matter how far removed, with children!

He also once sent a smutty joke around as an email. This man needs to be locked up...

3 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I like your blog, but not sure about this. 'Choosing to do drugs' isn't morally neutral, it means (esp. with cocaine) choosing to spend one's money supporting violence and oppression. And someone involved in the Co-op Bank (of all people) should be well aware of the moral implications of how one spends one's money...

I'm no fan of drugs. As a child I was affected by a police drugs raid, a terrifying experience indeed, and have since then frowned upon those whose actions bring such evils into the lives of others. Hell recently I've even started to give up on alcohol.

However the consequences you speak of, and the ones that so affected me, come from the prohibition on drugs. Due to their illegality they are involved in allsorts of horrors. Mass murder in Mexico is just the most obvious of these. Drugs should be decriminalised as soon as possible to help stop this killing and deprive violent criminals of their livelihoods.

Do you think that supporting the anti-drugs police is somehow NOT supporting violence and oppression? Have you ever had the police break down your door, terrify your children, kill your pets all because someone may have smoked weed in your house?

There is no good side to pick in the drugs war. The only side to pick is the side that wants this craziness to end and to end soon. For the good of all involved.

Passing blame onto drug users for the crimes of others and for the position that the Government has put them in helps no one.

Hello, thanks for your reply. I agree that there are lots of persuasive reasons to decriminalise drugs, and that the 'war on drugs' is pretty counter-productive. But in the meantime, while the production and distribution of cocaine is so mired in violence, then when relatively privileged middle class people such as Mr Flowers buy it, they're abdicating moral responsibility. The notion that it is a trivial matter plays into the outlook that our responsibilities as consumers outweigh other responsibilities - which is exactly what the Co-operative movement tries to get away from... Anyway, keep up the thought-provoking blog!